Raúl Labrador’s Revolt

The House Liberty Caucus isn’t afraid to stir up a revolution in Congress. Its conservative-libertarian members include well-known “troublemakers” like Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, one of 12 Republicans to oppose House Speaker John Boehner’s reelection in January 2013. Amash, chairman of the Liberty Caucus, warned at the time that a “larger rebellion” could take place in the future—and this April, National Journal reported that as many as 40 or 50 dissident House Republicans have now committed verbally to electing a new speaker.

This Tea Party vanguard has yet to put forward a contender to replace Boehner. But the kind of legislator they have in mind is suggested by the man Amash himself voted for as speaker in 2013: Idaho Rep. Raúl Labrador. Amash told Buzzfeed reporter Kate Nocera that Labrador is “the kind of guy who would make a good leader in our party,” and he “would vote for him for speaker again.”

So who is this Idaho congressman?

Raised in Carolina, Puerto Rico by a single mother, Labrador worked his way from poverty to law school and from the state legislature to Congress. Though she lost her job when her son was born, Labrador’s mother Ana Pastor refused to turn to welfare. She told Labrador government dependency led to a “decay of the soul.” She was a Democrat and saw JFK as her hero—but during the 1980s, she switched parties to vote for Ronald Reagan. Her son took note and now cites Reagan as his political role model.

“He made us feel safe,” Labrador says. “There was an assurance in his gaze and a steadiness in his leadership that made America feel better about itself, and I think, more than anything, that’s what he did for me.”

Pastor and her son moved to Las Vegas in 1980. After high school, Labrador enrolled at Brigham Young University, where he met future wife Rebecca Johnson, and thereafter earned his law degree from the University of Washington. Labrador and his wife moved to her native state, Idaho, in 1996, and Labrador set up a law practice in 2000 specializing in immigration.

In 2003, Labrador spoke to Latino voters in Boise and caught the attention of former Idaho House Minority Leader Wendy Jaquet. Afterwards, reports Kip Hill of the local Spokesman Review, she asked Labrador whether he’d be interested in running for office as a Democrat. He laughed and told her, “No, no, I’m a conservative Republican.”

“It wasn’t the first time, nor would it be the last, that the political establishment would be surprised by Labrador,” notes Hill.

Labrador won a state legislature seat in 2006 and quickly made waves in the capitol. He organized group discussions with freshman legislators about taxes and other pending issues. In his biggest move, he successfully challenged Republican Governor Butch Otter’s plan to raise taxes to fund roads and bridges.

“I realized I had certain abilities and certain gifts—persuasion and others—that allowed me to be pretty good at this game,” Labrador says.

♦♦♦

Idaho’s first district is, in Labrador’s words, “an interesting district.” In presidential contests, it’s always Republican. But the district stretches across the entire west side of the state: a long, thin swath of ideological and partisan variations. One thing unites it, according to Labrador: “It’s a very independent district.” He says his constituents don’t bother voting along partisan lines—“they just want fiercely independent people.”

When Labrador decided to run for Congress in 2010, no one thought a win would be possible. Walt Minnick, the incumbent, was a rather conservative Democrat: he even received a Tea Party Express endorsement. He was well known in the business community and liked by his district. Many other politicians who imagined themselves “next in line” for the seat, says Labrador, thought Minnick unbeatable.

Instead of backing Labrador, the GOP establishment endorsed another candidate in the party’s primary: former CIA officer and military veteran Vaughn Ward. He received a high-profile endorsement from Sarah Palin and was named one of the first candidates in the National Republican Congressional Committee’s Young Guns recruiting program. But Ward began to make careless and embarrassing errors: during a televised debate with Labrador, he said his opponents’ home territory of Puerto Rico was another country. He was caught plagiarizing policy positions from other politicians’ websites. He even plagiarized Obama’s Democratic National Convention speech from 2004.

Meanwhile, Labrador had amassed a sizeable grassroots team. Former Idaho Speaker of the House Lawerence Denney became one of his campaign co-chairs, “which at the time was not a popular thing to do,” Denney says. Labrador’s team believed the race would be close—but they won by a surprising nine points.

“He came from virtual obscurity in 2010 to win his primary,” says Dan Popkey, political reporter and columnist for the Idaho Statesman. Despite his opposition to the governor’s tax plan, Labrador was still a virtual unknown, and he didn’t begin campaigning for the primary until December.

Looking back, Labrador says he was “lucky” not to be backed by the establishment: he didn’t have the money to pay consultants and so “had to figure out for myself what I believed.” This independence enabled him to present a consistent, personal platform—“I wasn’t just saying these trite or proven phrases that were supposed to persuade people.”

While running against Minnick, Labrador adopted a simple “mantra”: he conceded that Minnick votedlike a conservative, but reminded voters that the Democrat was merely representing his district rather than adhering to principles he believed in. “With me,” Labrador said, “you get someone who votes his district and actually believes like his district.” Labrador won by 10 points.

♦♦♦

Today Labrador sees himself as one of a “core group of conservatives” who are bringing change to Congress. He describes them as young and independent, “conservative-leaning-libertarian types,” all willing to defy the establishment in an effort to get things done. One might reasonably assume that Sen. Mike Lee, Congressman Amash, and many from the Liberty Caucus fit within this cohort.

Labrador was an ally of the Senate’s Gang of Eight—legislators from both parties in favor of comprehensive immigration reform—and his ethnic background and work as an immigration lawyer have lent him credence as one of the House’s experts on immigration. His district gives him insight into the tension inherent in the immigration debate as well: Idaho has a sizeable population of immigrants who work—legally or not—at businesses throughout the state. “I saw the needs [of] the agricultural community, the farming community, the construction community … but at the same time I lived in communities that were concerned about the lack of following the law,” Labrador says.

But Labrador left the House’s Gang of Eight last year, citing disagreement over language in the reform bill that would provide health insurance, at taxpayer expense, to undocumented immigrants. “The Democratic Party believes that health insurance is a social responsibility of the nation,” Labrador told The Hill. “I believe that health insurance is an individual responsibility. And that’s a really hard philosophy to mesh.”

Political analyst W. James Antle III of The Daily Caller News Foundation doesn’t believe this hurt Labrador’s standing within the GOP. He suggests that “bailing on the Gang of Eight gives [Labrador] credibility with Republicans on this issue that John McCain, Marco Rubio, and even Paul Ryan don’t have.”

Labrador thinks it would be a “disaster” to pass comprehensive immigration reform this year. He believes the GOP can take back the Senate in November, but if a liberal immigration bill is passed before then, “our base will be depressed in the general election, and we won’t be able to win.”

Though not well known for his foreign-policy stances, Labrador generally aligns with Amash and others in the Liberty Caucus against foreign interventions. He has opposed the National Defense Authorization Act and the PATRIOT Act on civil libertarian grounds. Labrador was also one of 19 House representatives to vote against the Ukraine Support Act in March.

Last September, Labrador announced he would vote against any Congressional authorization for the use of force in Syria. On Sept. 16, he released a statement noting the lack of U.S. national interests at stake, adding, “After our experience in Iraq, I couldn’t think of anything worse than putting our brave service members in harm’s way to police a civil war in a place where we have no vital national interests.”

His maverick inclinations have earned him respect across the aisle as well as among Tea Party Republicans. “I get along with Democrats really well,” he says, “And I think that’s something that’s unreported. I think it’s partly my libertarian tendencies.” He’s currently working on bipartisan prison reform legislation.

♦♦♦

But in order to become a power player in Washington politics, Justin Vaughn, assistant professor of political science at Boise State University, believes Labrador would have to lose some of his fierce independence. Since he didn’t emerge from a “machine-style background, rising up through the ranks and paying your dues,” Labrador has never had to compromise on his ideological principles. “He doesn’t have the incentives right now—nothing that’s coercing him into being more pragmatic,” Vaughn says. Were he to pursue a leadership role in the House, this would have to change.

But the congressman downplays speculation about his ambitions within the Beltway: “I know I don’t want to be here forever,” he says. “I didn’t come to Congress to make it a career.” Indeed, with his children still in school, Labrador goes home to Idaho every weekend—even though this entails sleeping in his office during the week. His life in D.C. continues to seem quite temporary.

Perhaps this is why some Idahoans pegged him as a prospective gubernatorial candidate last year. For a while, Labrador gave demure answers to queries as to whether he might run for Governor Otter’s position—but then announced last August that he wasn’t running and said he “was not thinking about running” in the first place until supporters asked him.

“He’s good in a crowd, and good one-on-one,” Popkey says. “Even those in the tiny Democratic Party in Idaho speak well of him as a civil human being.” Popkey could see Labrador running for governor or U.S. Senate—but either way, says Popkey, “I don’t see him spending an entire career in the House.”

Yet murmurs of GOP mutiny against Speaker Boehner raise interesting questions for Labrador’s future. He’s touted as a leader of the conservative resistance—and if he continues to build a following in Washington, he may receive more votes than Amash’s in an election for speaker. At the very least, he’s shown his party something of what its future might look like.

MORE IN POLITICS

Hide 19 comments

19 Responses to Raúl Labrador’s Revolt

Re: “But Labrador left the House’s Gang of Eight last year, citing disagreement over language in the reform bill that would provide health insurance, at taxpayer expense, to undocumented immigrants. “The Democratic Party believes that health insurance is a social responsibility of the nation,” Labrador told The Hill. “I believe that health insurance is an individual responsibility. And that’s a really hard philosophy to mesh.”

More bogus immigration “reform”. So Labrador does favor open immigration so that Crony Capitalists can pay substandard wages. But not the requirement that they provide health insurance. How convenient. Of course when the immigrants, (who can’t afford to buy health insurance with those substandard wages) get sick, they end up in the ER as charity care cases that the health care institutions have to eat.

And absent full employment, each immigrant that displaces an American citizen costs the government in terms of unemployment payments, Medicaid, food stamps, etc. More subsidization of Crony business by socializing displaced labor costs that are ultimately paid for by the taxpayer. How about this? Give the Cronies an option, hire Americans at a decent wage, or hire immigrants at substandard wages and pay a tax for each hire equal to the transfer payments made to the displaced Americans.

And if Labrador agrees substantially with the Gang of Eight, then he agrees with opening the H-1B floodgates for STEM immigrants. Again displacing American workers for a Crony preferred workforce of cheaper compliant immigrants who will work as indentured servants for a Green Card. See this report that again refutes the claims of STEM shortages:

And why aren’t guys like Labrador working on the root causes of labor shortages if they do indeed exist rather than just throwing immigrants at the problem? Where are his solutions for those?

Moreover, look at Labrador’s congressional web page on Issues. More of the same vague smoke and mirror stuff that denies the reality of a complex trade space. In the end, Labrador looks like just another shallow politico-hack.

Excellent and educational piece. When your own representative is a machine politician it is hard to get excited about who represents where, but this is a great piece that shows not all districts are like Virginia’s 11th. Glad to see we have another hat in the ring for speaker, it will certainly cause debate, and that is never a bad thing.

In a country of whose poor are in desperate need of lawyers, I am unmoved by his immigration lawyer experience and even less on his position on immigration.

How do you advocate undermining your own citizens and call yourself a conservative is beyond my comprehension. No doubt because I a lame brained traditionalist neanderthal that actually thinks the country might be worth fighting for in spite of the panic exhibited by the country’s leadership brought on by their own failed leadership.

Labrador’s phrase: “had to figure out for myself what I believed.” is rare in today’s consultant-driven political class.

We need more of it.

People like that have a better chance of basing their policy positions on facts & evidence and hopefully reflecting their local communities’ interests and experiences — far removed from the Washington D. C. ideologies of foreign intervention and domestic centralization.

My suspicion: When local communities are consulted and represented by original politicians like Mr. Labrador, war & concentration of power in Washington D. C. recedes.

“The biggest lingering issue — if the government should subsidize any health care for immigrants seeking citizenship — appears to be settled. Under a tentative deal reached Thursday, immigrants who are in the United States illegally would need to buy their own insurance, and if they accept government subsidized care, they’re out of the country. Republicans agreed to exempt emergency care.

“We’re hoping that we have a fix that conforms with, you know, some basic principles,” said Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.), one of the eight negotiators. “Which is that these people that we’re dealing with — that we’re trying to deal with — do not become a public charge.”

How about this? Give the Cronies an option, hire Americans at a decent wage, or hire immigrants at substandard wages and pay a tax for each hire equal to the transfer payments made to the displaced Americans

SteveM, you’re setting the bar very low here. How about, instead, we actively, and purposefully, construct a system of shared prosperity, based on shared goals and values, in which there are no ‘cronies’ and no impoverished people earning a de-socialized waged (viz. a wage with no pension, vacation, sick days, etc.)?
Why settle for such low expectations? As that old Hollywood divorcé, Ronald Reagan, used to say: we have the power to begin the world again.

Boehner and Labrador are both terrible on immigration. The former is doing the bidding of the donors while the other does it for libertarian ideology (I believe Rand Paul, while elusive on the issue, in his heart of hearts, has no problem with open borders.) I wish somebody like Walter Jones would run for Speaker. They’ll probably bet him in the primary next time around, so he might as well go for broke.

I’m with SteveM, with his particularly exceptional comment in regard to Mr. Labrador’s policy on immigration and his apparent need to pass amnesty by another name later rather than sooner. His so-called conservative credentials are highly suspect considering the fact that he is a former immigration lawyer and the fact that he is quite fine with the eventual legalisation of scofflaws, just not too soon so as to bring down the morale of the base. Is it at all possible for their to be a Latino Republican politician that is against illegal immigration, regardless of how conservative they claim to be? I’m thinking not.

Let me beat this undead horse that is Raul Labrador one last time. Re: the Health Care issue page from his web site:

“I strongly oppose the “Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act,” better known as “Obamacare,” and I’ve voted to repeal it. We should replace “Obamacare” with common-sense, market-based solutions, such as allowing people to purchase health insurance across state lines. By passing legislation rooted in the principles of choice and competition, we can lower health care costs, expand access, and improve the quality of care.

More shallow and stupid generalities. Moreover, there are now only a handful of health insurance providers; Aetna, Blue Cross, Kaiser Permanente, Humana. And those are nationwide companies. You think those guys are going to take a net loss if that tactic is made legal? Allowing people in New Jersey to buy an Aetna policy from Alabama would just raise premium prices for the Aetna policy holders in Alabama.

The Republicans are bereft of ideas, only they are faking that they’re not with vapid policy prescriptions. Labrador is an empty suit like his pal in the Senate Marco Rubio. If those guys are the future of the Republican Party, the Republican Party has no future…

Labrador is a corporatist who wants to increase the number of low-skilled guest workers and foreign STEM workers despite incredibly high unemployment in the former and studies showing STEM grads cannot get jobs. He was put in place by the powerful Ag and Dairy corporations in Idaho to replace Larry Craig. He does not represent the people of Idaho.

Also: “Labrador thinks it would be a “disaster” to pass comprehensive immigration reform this year. He believes the GOP can take back the Senate in November, but if a liberal immigration bill is passed before then, “our base will be depressed in the general election, and we won’t be able to win.”

If he has expressed a desire not to make his career in Washington this would seem to be a strange decision. But I guess he’s not expecting to win. Still, I’d love to hear the case he makes to his House colleagues.